Resignation Letter of Fr Juan Turco to Bishop Fellay (from TIA website):


Letter to the Superior General of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay

Fr. Juan José Turco

Bogotá, April 5, 2010.
Monday in the Octave of Easter
Bishop Fellay,

After informing you of what has happened with me on a personal level (with the correspondence that I sent you yesterday) and after having received your replies, I see no point to continue writing. In good conscience I cannot agree with what is being done by both Your Excellency and the other Fathers.

Doctrinal concessions

First and foremost, I refer to all the doctrinal flaws involved in the present talks with Rome.

In short, let me mention the following:
The doctrinal flaw of accepting pre-conditions;

Did you or did you not ask for the lifting of the excommunication?

Why were things that Archbishop Lefebvre has said and done hidden or misrepresented?

How it is possible to attribute to the Virgin Mary [the accomplishment of] pre-conditions involving modernist errors and falsehoods?

How can we have continued on [with the talks] despite the fact that Rome has not converted?

How can you present a false image of Benedict XVI as if he would be regularly favoring Tradition? How does he show this? Is it by his saying that the Traditional Mass is subordinate to the New Mass or by seeking to merge the two? Is it by his lifting of the excommunication as if it were valid? Is it by his saying that we are outside of the Church if we do not accept the Council? Is it by his using the image of the Curé of Ars to encourage "the active participation of the laity" or his embellishing of Modernism with "holiness" and "piety" in order to thus save the modernist liturgy?


Smiles and concessions in the talks with Rome
I place these questions along with the other points presented in the letters I sent to you in October and November of last year (2009).

In good conscience I cannot agree to these talks and their flaws:
Because we are forced to remain silent (the facts can prove it);
Because I foresee that we will continue to make doctrinal concessions;
Because, according to statements of the Society, I see that what is intended is not to convert Rome, but to reach a canonical solution regardless of whether we shred the doctrine and the liturgy in the process;
Because I foresee that we will align ourselves with those [who accepted the conditions] of Ecclesia Dei;
Because the way these talks are being conducted is a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fellay: ‘An authentic renewal started…’

Second, in good conscience I cannot agree with many of your statements.

In addition to those I have mentioned on other occasions, I want to affirm here that it seems incredible to me that the Superior of the SSPX can make such error of judgment as to write to me: "If someone, as you claim, like Fr. Ceriani, that everyone [in the Vatican] is modernist, then think again. You are outside of the reality and the truth".

Or when you wrote: "A renewal of the Church has started. It is very difficult, but authentic."

Ideological persecution inside SSPX

Third, because of the doctrinal implications in the talks:

I cannot agree to the prohibitions which demanded that I remain silent about the Modernism of Benedict XVI. It is incredible that this has occurred in the Society of Saint Pius X.



No official criticism permitted of Benedict's visit to the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє In January 2010
Fourth, I cannot agree with – and once again I protest – the abuse of authority that has taken place:
The threat that I would have to leave the Society unless I remained silent about the Modernism of the Pope;
The expulsion of Bucaramanga based on lies;
The alleged canonical admonitions preparing for my expulsion;
The prohibition to carry out any ministry and to hear confessions.
It is absolutely incredible how deep you – and the other Superiors of the Society – have fallen to avoid any talk about the flaws in these discussions with Rome and to persecute those who dare to raise objections.

Bishop Fellay, it is your decision whether to continue with these talks. My conscience cannot agree either with the doctrinal flaws included in them or with the abuse of authority that has been made. In good conscience, I cannot officially concur with what the SSPX is doing at present, and, for that reason, I see myself forced to leave the Society.

Decision to leave

Therefore, be aware that for the reasons exposed above, today I leave the Society of Saint Pius X. Should the Society at any time cut off these talks that are destroying it and return to clearly denouncing the Modernism of the Pope and the official Church, I will request permission to enter the Society once again.

May God and the Virgin help us all.

             With respect,

             Fr. Juan José Turco
This letter was posted on Radio Cristiandad under the headline
“Father Juan José Turco continues the good combat.”
It can be read in Spanish here.

French Capuchin Resists Drive for Accord Back in 2009
Taken from TIA website
TIA commentary puts letter in context; actual letter follows:


Reactions opposed to the accord of the SSPX leaders with Rome implying the acceptance of Vatican II “interpreted in the light of Tradition” seem to be growing among priests of the organization. Two of them that recently came to TIA's knowledge appear to be just the tip of the iceberg. The first was from the Prior of Orizaba in Mexico, Fr. Basilio Meramo, who publicly stated his indignation over Bishop Fellay’s agreement with Rome, which he qualified as an apostasy. TIA posted one sermon and an open letter that he wrote presenting his opposition to any accord.

Now, a new case has come to the surface.

On February 5, Bishop Fellay was present at a meeting of the SSPX superiors in France that took place in St. Nicholas de Chardonnay, Paris. After his speech in which he gave an account of the recent steps regarding his relations with the Vatican, a Capuchin superior of the Convent of St. Anthony Aurenque, Fr. Jean de Morgon, stood up and asked whether it was Bishop Fellay’s intention to accept “the Conciliar Church, the Modernist Rome.” As the Bishop hesitated, the religious insisted a second and a third time, but received no answer to his question.

The Franciscan superior, also present, ordered Fr. Jean to be silent and leave the room. Fr. Jean declared in loud voice that “there is no obligation whatsoever to obey someone who contradicts Faith and Morals,” but he left the room. Afterwards, he was ordered to issue a letter of apology to Bishop Fellay.

Fr. Jean stated that he would apologize for the form of his question, not for its content. To this “letter of apology” he had been ordered to write, he attached a declaration in which he expounded the reasons for his disagreement with the accord. He sent this declaration to various friends and supporters of SSPX, who placed it on a French website on February 22, 2009. Recently, one of our readers sent it to us.

Below, we present the main excerpts of Fr. Jean’s attached statement, translated from French by TIA (our subtitles). Our readers familiar with French can read the full text here or read news about it on websites that reported the episode (here and here).

The highlights of this docuмent are doubtless the following:

Fr. Jean’s allegation that a network of progressivist priests infiltrated the SSPX;
His affirmation that they managed to rise to key-positions in the organization;
His statement that the present day accord with Rome headed by Bishop Fellay would be the principal goal of their agenda.
Also surprising is his final affirmation that Bishop Williamson would be a part of this team.
I leave the reader to judge the truth of these statements.

TIA is taking the initiative to report this episode, as it did in the case of Fr. Meramo, because it seems to have been forbidden to circulate these dissensions among the SSPX grassroots. It is hard to justify leaders of a movement who prevent their followers from knowing what is happening in their own ranks. I believe the faithful have the right to know these controversies. Here is my contribution toward this end..

     The Editor



Principal Excerpts from Fr. Jean’s Letter


Convent St. Anthony Aurenque
Castelnaud d’Arbieu, Fleurence
February 11, 2009
Our Lady of Lourdes

Monsignor, …

In conscience, before God and men, for the common good of Catholic tradition and hence the Church, it seems to be my duty to add to my letter of apology what follows:

After my vehement intervention on February 5, pressure was put on me both in St. Nicholas and in Causade. In response, I said that I would apologize for the form (the ire) but not for the matter (the complaint).

Thus, I intensely regret having lost my temper, insofar as it caused scandal to some (although I have received congratulations by telephone and letter) or harmed or deviated from the subject of my complaint. Further, a simple letter of apology might allow you to think that I regret what I said. Thus, [to avoid this impression] I feel obliged to return to that matter and make it even more explicit. …

If I did not sing the Te Deum for the Motu Proprio, it is because my superior allowed me freedom on that point. I did not want to applaud a text that places the Mass of all times on the same level as the “bastard” Mass, as Msgr. Lefebvre often called it. …

I consider the SSPX a work of the Church, my second mother. To it I owe the integral conservation of my faith, my religious life and my priesthood. I wholehearted love it, and this is why I become indignant when I believe it is threatened. …

[He goes on to explain that he believes there is an infiltration inside the SSPX, and he calls those members “subversives.”]

When I took the microphone [at the meeting in Paris], I said that I - along with many other priests - was very apprehensive with what was happening in the SSPX- Vatican relations that appears to be leading us - slowly but surely – toward joining with conciliar and modernist Rome.

On that occasion I spoke out – with great repugnance – on behalf of other priests who encouraged me to do so. I was not just expressing my personal opinion. For five years, I have been convinced that this development constitutes part of a skillful process designed by certain subversive priests who managed to occupy strategic positions in the SSPX (as superiors, in seminaries, media and finances) in order to lead it to this merger [with modernist Vatican]. …

A suspect petition

Since I returned from Paris, Divine Providence has confirmed to me - as if it were necessary - that this process of merging is in progress. One of the faithful showed me a text from the Internet of a petition of support for Benedict XVI. In the announcements of Sunday Mass, I believed it was my duty to warn the faithful about this campaign, telling them that we should pray for Pope Benedict XVI, because he has heavy responsibilities, but that it was not the case to give him an unconditional support, considering that he had just declared (L’Osservatore Romano, French weekly edition, Dec. 23-30, 2008, p. 6) that the Church rejoices at the autonomy between the State and the Church, considering it a great progress of mankind. I also deemed it proper to invite the faithful to read an [old] article of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais about the errors taught (again and again, without any corrections) by professor Ratzinger (Sel de la Terre n. 67, pp 22-54).

Further investigation of the source of this petition clearly shows on the website of Forum Catholique that it springs from and is encouraged by GREC [French acronym for Group of Reflection among Catholics] that was founded in 1997 (for 10 years we did not even know of the existence of such a club!). This group brings together clergy and laity from all the various tendencies of “tradition,” primarily those who have merged [with the Vatican]. Among those is found the SSPX. They work “to achieve reconciliation according to the institutional and juridical forms.” This goal obviously targets the SSPX, which among that group is the only one that (still) has not merged.

One can also read there that this petition is encouraged by Archbishop [Fortunato] Baldelli, the Apostolic Nuncio, and Bishop [Philippe] Breton of Aire and Dax, representing the Bishops of France. I was told by a SSPX colleague that Bishop Breton stated that he met Fr. Cacqueray [the French superior of SSPX] at a GREC meeting … I was not surprised, therefore, to learn that the superior of the French district [Cacqueray] had exhorted all the faithful of Mutualité [in Paris] to sign the petition supporting Benedict XVI.

Do we need more proofs that the SSPX authorities are determined to merge with conciliar Rome? Is it necessary to listen again to the program of Radio Courtesy (July 17, 2007) where Fr. Lelong, a GREC activist, assured his listeners that the present day SSPX leaders would be fully willing to merge and that their task would essentially be only to silence the recalcitrant inside the SSPX?

Measuring the consequences

I am perfectly aware of the gravity of these revelations and their consequences. I have weighed and verified them as much as possible through the means Divine Providence recently afforded me. In conscience I could no longer remain silent, only in prayer. I do not want to wait for the house to be completely burned before calling the alert! I am absolutely certain that I fulfill my duty and the will of God in communicating these things to you. It is up to you to make your own judgment following your own conscience. Thinking about the numerous souls that were confided by Our Lord Jesus Christ to your care and for which you will have to give an account regarding their faith at the judgment day [the question rises]: “What do you expect from the Church?” The answer: The FAITH.

Regarding the future, I place myself totally in the hands of Divine Providence. I expect to be cast into the street, being labeled “sede-vacantist” (defamation is a classical tactic of the subversives to marginalize their opponents). If some tragedy will happen to me - it is necessary to foresee everything - I have confided this letter and all my hot docuмents to some dependable friends, who can disseminate them should the need arise. I know that my parents will provide for me and help me to re-start or, better said, to continue my religious life somewhere else. It is an enormous pain for me to become “vagus”, but if this is the will of the Good God in this astonishing crisis, so be it!

I have no trust in Bishop Fellay, who uses his authority to cover this whole operation. Neither do I have any in Bishop Williamson, who was found to be in secret contact with Rome a week after Easter 2008. Regarding our other two Bishops, I hope that on the day of the merger (which would not be so far off, as many pretend, since Benedict XVI is getting old…) or even before, at least one of them will stand up and continue the work of Msgr. Lefebvre.

Should this happen, I alert my brothers of Morgon and Aurenque who refuse this capitulation on the battlefield of the Faith that I will return and place myself under the obedience of their superior or the eldest one. Until this day comes, let us remain united in praying the Rosary, confiding in the final triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Fr. Jean O.F.M.
Posted April 14, 2009

Open Letter of Fr Carzozo to the Resistance
Taken from TIA website:



Open Letter to my Colleague Priests, Faithful & Friends


Nova Friburgo, May 13, 2012
95th anniversary of the 1st apparition of Our Lady in Fatima


After reading the letter of the three SSPX Bishops to the General House, and the answer given by Msgr. Fellay and his followers (which have more or less the same errors as those manifested in the past by Dom Gérard, Fr. Rifan and Fr. Muñoz), I have nothing more to say than to express:

1.   My total adhesion to the SSPX and its Founder and, therefore, my absolute support of the three Bishops who remain faithful to the work of Msgr. Lefebvre, in whom I place my obedience.

2.   My non-recognition of the authority of Msgr. Fellay, given his pertinacity and distancing from the principles of the Founder, and [my non-recognition of the authority] of all those who share his position of surrendering to Rome, independent of the office they occupy, and, therefore, my rejection of such position of this Bishop, based on his opinions and polices that are totally removed from the policy of yes-yes, no-no of the Gospel and the foundations given by Msgr. Lefebvre. (1)

 

Fr. Ernesto Cardozo
3.   Our absolute rejection also to any accord with modernist Rome to which this Bishop, Msgr. Fellay, is shamefully dragging us in a suicidal operation, ignoring the counsels:
 Of the Founder;
 Of his three brothers in the Episcopate;
 Of diverse priests who, in the last years with due reasons, refuted his steps toward a communion with a Church self-defined as “post-conciliar” and not Catholic, which is enemy of Our Lord and His universal Kingship. (2) They ended by being expelled or resigning in order to not end in the lamentable situation we have reached today.
4.   For these reasons, I call on the three faithful Bishops, who have an authority given to them by the Founder, to assume the command of the SSPX to avoid its dismantling and dispersion.

5.   I call on the members and faithful who still maintain a minimum of loyalty, fidelity and obedience to the Founder to support in a clear and efficient way our three Bishops, and withdraw all support from those subservient followers of the one who permitted, by his consent, collaboration and silence, the present day state of affairs that is leading the SSPX to an irremediable division.

Given that we have been confirmed, i.e., that we are soldiers of Christ the King by the anti-modernist oath we made at our ordination, in order not to end in perjury and apostasy, I call on all to clearly take the position of Tradition and support with all their efforts the defense of the SSPX, the secure boat in which we have reached so many goals and through which we survived the apostasy of our times, while we wait for the complete conversion of the Pope and Rome to the Eternal Rome.

Trusting in the consecration of our religious family made in the past to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let us combat with her and for her until the end. Amen.

Fr. Ernesto J.J. Cardozo

1.   In a letter dated August 18, 1988, Msgr. Lefebvre, referring to the agreement made by Dom Gerard, wrote to Dom Thomas, prior of the Monastery of the Holy Cross: “to maintain his liberty and reject any bond with modernist Rome.”

2.   In a statement made this Friday [May 11, 2012] to Catholic News Service, speaking from the General House in Menzingen, Switzerland, the Superior of the SSPX, Bernard Fellay, admitted discrepancies in the Society regarding an accord with the Holy See: “I cannot exclude that there might be a split,” he affirmed.

Msgr. Fellay told CNS that in his opinion “the move of the Holy Father - because it really comes from him - is genuine.” “It doesn’t seem to be any trap …(sic!) So we have to look into it very closely and if possible move ahead.”

Referring to the initiative of Benedict XVI, Fellay was quite clear: “Personally, I would have waited for some more time to see things clearer, but once again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now.”, “But we are not alone in working to defend the faith. It’s the Pope himself who does it … (sic!)”

Forum:

These are the letters, posts, etc. that spring to my mind.

Please feel free to post additional docuмents/arguments from resistance priests.

But let's keep the thread a mere compilation of source materials.

No commentaries please.

The purpose of this thread is to compile a cuмulative body of docuмentation that can be easily accesses and read by those seeking an understanding of the current struggle within the SSPX.

Pax.

Again, an older item, but hopefully still fits, and I did not see it in the collection of Fr. Chazal items on a previous page:



https://docs.google.com/docuмent/pub?id=19K...w3WDGcka-0OXB8o

WAR ON

FIRST PRELUDE

THREE BISHOPS DECLARE THAT THE WAR AGAINST THE NEW ROME IS STILL ON

AND

BEG BISHOP FELLAY NOT TO SIGN ANY PRACTICAL AGREEMENT WITH IT



SECOND PRELUDE

BISHOP FELLAY AND HIS TWO ASSISTANTS ANSWER THAT THE WAR AGAINST THE NEW ROME IS OVER

AND

THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PROCEED TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW ROME REGARDLESS OF THEIR WARNING

THOSE TWO LETTERS ARE FOUND EASILY ON THE INTERNET

Bohol 18 May,
OLVC, Manila 20 May,
Seoul, 27 May 2012.

My dear faithful,

Part I

The Fornicating New Rome

Last week I woke up reconciled with the new Rome - I thought for 12 years that it would never come to this, but while I was napping, the Vatican II of the SSPX got on its way and now it is the windows of the Society that open themselves to the New Rome, through the lever of false obedience.

But the New Rome is to be destroyed; she is Carthage to us. We have nothing to do with it; We have no canonical structure to do with it, we have no practical agreement to do with it, we have no point of doctrinal convergence to do with it. If Our Lady said “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”, Rome will indeed lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist, despite all the beautiful diplomatic fixes we can think of, with the help of the Pontifical & Cardinal Regalia, Palaces, Sacred monuments, purple cassocks and fringed cinctures, smooth roman talk and skilled efforts of reconciliation, permission to say masses, trappings of tradition and peanuts of cardinal Hojos.

The new Rome remains death, not for us who have not joined it, but for millions and millions of souls who, for now 50 years could have gone to heaven by staying Catholic or by entering the Catholic Church.

And since what is proposed to us; to be directly under the Pope; (nothing new by the way, since it was always proposed to all those who ended up recycled to modernism); Let us look carefully at the one to whom we wish to entrust ourselves, Pope Benedict XVI, mysteriously and validly reigning over the official church.

Pope Benedict XVI, previously Cardinal Ratzinger, is our most consistent, rational, methodical, organized and effective enemy. He has studied our case for decades; he has almost trapped Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.While sharing the same heretical theology as the other heretic leaders, he has groomed a perfectly conservative & reassuring image. The man has never thrown anyone into prison; he has never fought us with any weapon but his pen (and sweet melodic voice), and has been most successful.“The power of the horses are in their mouth” (Apoc. IX,19).

“But father, how can you condemn such a man, the very head of the visible church, like that, a priori and with such vehemence?”“Why such a hardening?”
A priori condemnation is bad, but if condemnation comes after a huge mountain of evidence, past & present, such condemnation needs to be strong. Wolf is wolf. If wolf is, wolf thinks as wolf, acts as wolf, and kills as a wolf.

Think as a wolf: After his bad seminary training, Fr. Ratzinger became an adviser of Karl Rahner, maybe the worse “peritus” of Vatican II and revealed his core thinking in the book so traditionally entitled “Principles of Catholic Theology” which I read. His established thinking is that there is no established and stable concept in anything religious BUT ONE MAY NOT GO TOO FAR INTO MUTATING DOGMATIC CONCEPTS. People’s minds work at different speed; we need an adaptable and multispeed modernism.Pascendi denounced modernism in 2D; Benedict XVI is modernism in 3D.

This great skill of his seduced many of his modernist confreres, and so it came to pass that Cardinal Ratzinger became the architect of the New Catechism, the Declaration on justification, the Declaration of Balamand, the whole Assisi project… Almost all the disastrous pronouncements of Pope John Paul II can be retraced to him, and can we say that he has changed his mind today? Absolutely not, for when he read his own recent decree of “Beatification” of John Paul II, he stated at length that the main sign of John Paul II sanctity is the council and its strenuous application to the church throughout his pontificate.

That is why it is so important to look if Benedict XVI acts as a wolf now, not yesterday but now; for the big temptation is to believe that things have changed and that Benedict XVI is really leaning towards us, in such a wise as to became almost one of us… How beautiful and hopydopyful, isn’t it?

But no; 4 times no at least: as to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism& Protestantism.
Hinduism: When I was in Bombay around 2006, I got to read what Benedict XVI had to say about inculturation in India. He praised it, but with reservations. Isn’t that nice and traditional, reservations about inculturation? Well, except for the fact that he reproached the Indian bishops to insert only the Hindu elements into Catholic worship, instead of putting enough of the Buddhist culture; and this is very sad because the Buddhist religion originated from India and Buddhism is a great religion…

Note well: No Indian plumes & feathers, no kumkum on the forehead, but a more consistent and intellectual approach.

Islam: There again, Benedict XVI didn’t kiss the Koran, that goes too much against his Bavarian categories of the sensibility. But when he went the Mosque of Istanbul, he took off his shoes, went to the Mirhab, folded his hands in the Moslem position, turned towards Mecca and prayed with the other Moslems surrounding him. The whole thing lasted a few minutes, never to be repeated again; but there again, one can see the same consistency of practice. Benedict XVI is a little like the tape of a surveillance camera; quite boring to watch except on a few horrific frames.

Judaism: The lack of assiduity for Paganism & Islam in Benedict XVI,isclearly compensated by his fervor and admiration for the Jєωιѕн religion. Almost every year, the Pope goes to the ѕуηαgσgυє and makes long speeches whose main idea is “The Old Covenant is still valid and not revoked”.

How can one be more clearly opposed to the Catholic faith? To the Epistles of St. Paul? This is so grave that the Ecuмenism of Benedict XVI seems to suggest that one religion is above the others, namely Judaism.And the choice for Judaism is judicious, because Judaism is the worse false religion, in that it denies so perfectly and vehemently the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Protestantism: The above is not to suggest that Benedict XVI does not understand the profound spirituality of Martin Luther. But there again, Benedict will go beyond John-Paul. He will enter the protestant temple in full Pontifical Regalia, (not just in white cassock) and participate in the first part (remember, Benedict XVI is a conservative, only half way bad) in a protestant service. His praise for Luther is more detailed and profound; spiritually and theologically motivated: how could it be otherwise; he is a German Pope.

Let us not forget that he is the First Pope to have breached the Catholic Doctrine on Artificial Contraception or to invite Atheists at the prayer meeting of Assisi, or to meet a female Bishop in Bishopess’ attire, or to give communion to a protestant (Brother Roger of Taize) etc.

The recent interview called “The Salt of the Earth” shows a completely confused mind, incapable of stable concepts & dogmas, a mind without Faith say bishop Tissier De Mallerais (whose book could not be published for some time by Clovis for technical reasons; and is not going to be translated by the Angelus out of respect for the sensitivities of the American District). Benedict XVI still sees renewal in the face of destruction. He has made the prowess to write a book on Jesus without mentioning, even once, his divinity. He is completely obstinate in his thinking, therefore any doctrinal discussion with his experts were bound to fail.

Kills as a wolf. If one is so obstinate in his ideas, there is no reason why he should change his actions. Benedict XVI, as far as we know, does not say the True Mass. He did say a mass facing the Orient in the Sistine Chapel but explained immediately that it was because the place doesn’t have an altar facing the people and that the text he recited was the text of the new mass, that mass that sends so many people to Hell.

Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger said the true mass in the past, but that was to set up the Fraternity of St. Peter (That great antechamber for priests before being recycled back into the local diocese) or in Fongombaultin order to lead the meetings to discuss the “Reform of the Reform”.

Per se Benedict XVI does not believe in the True Mass; for him it is a museum piece. Just recently I read in the Wall Street Journal, in the plane, about his visit in Cuba. Very surprisingly, Fidel Castro asked him when he met why did the Church had to change the liturgy. Benedict snapped back immediately: “For renewal”.This is the typical answer of a diehard progressivist.

His obstinacy in error leads him to support all those neo Christian and protestant tainted charismatic contraptions, because these create the false idea of restoration of things, like the Opus Dei, and rehashes whatever is left of the piety of the people back into the sewer of all heresies. Benedict XVI is a genius.

If you want to know who a leader is, you also have to look at whom he appoints, for to govern is to delegate. The three topmost positions in the church are that of Secretary of State, Congregation for the Faith, and Congregation for Bishops.

Cardinal Bertone is Secretary of State and a clear delinquent. Unlike Benedict XVI, he is an open modernist, like his famous predecessors Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Casaroli. He has the bad temper of Villot and the maneuvering spirit of Casaroli and he sees to it that their legacy be maintained, namely that all civil governments remain separated from the Church in Catholic countries and encouraged to be run according to Masonic principles. The Ten Commandments of the Secretariate of State are the rights of man based on the dignity of the human person. Hence world peace requires that no serious steps should be taken to stop the persecution of Catholics in antichristian countries and that the efforts of those who still want to remain Catholic over there be discreetly thrown into disarray, like in China, in Russia, and in the Muslim world.
Cardinal Bertone got our good friend, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, excommunicated. He is mainly known to us for the burial of the message of Fatima, even if he was not he who engineered it in 2000.Such a task belonged then to the Master: Cardinal Ratzinger.

Next in line is Cardinal Levada, a close friend and successor of Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He does not seem to be doing much but a vital dossier has been placed on his desk: The dealing with the SSPX . . . .  But look how good he is tearing us to pieces.

Cardinal Levada’s past is not well known to us and that’s a pity. When he was bishop of San Francisco he had parishes for gαys and lesbians; so told me our faithful of the Bay Area. It is also well known that he tried to get the late Fr. Heidt back into the diocese, sitting in majesty in his office; flanked by canonical experts & theologians ready to fire. Fr. Heidt was unfazed: “Ok, I’m in, take me back, but on one condition” – “which is?”– “ I don’t want to see any gαy priest even near me in my parish and in my parish activities” – “I’m sowyfoatha, I can only say no” – “same here” replied the old warrior and he left the room. Fr. Heidt is right; what are we doing with those people?

Only a few people know much about Cardinal Ouellet the Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops. Like the other two above mentioned Congregations, his Congregation is busy in maintaining the Church in her desolate state at every local level or diocese. Indeed it would be a big disaster for the novusordo, if out of 4000 bishops or so, just one would turn out to be entirely traditional. Not only that, but the Congregation looks to it that there is no bishop saying the correct mass, coming from the rank of the Ecclesia Deigroups.And if one can be found in Campos, he has to try to govern his followers under the leadership of another Bishop, that is, the official Bishop of Campos.

Souls are sent to hell by the failure of the local clergy to teach their flock the faith and lead people to do penance for their sins.There is no better way to do that than by giving them consistently bad Bishops, some less bad and less aware of what they are doing than others, I agree, but all of them bad without exception.

One could go through all other lesser congregations and see the same pattern of organized liquidation of the Catholic Church, but I will retain only one for the sake of brevity: the Ecclesia Dei commission. While the new Rome wishes to embraces us so tenderly with one arm (Cardinal Levada), with the other arm (MgrPozzo), within the same month, it is strangling to death the Institute of Good Shepherd. This Institute is requested to fall in line with Vatican II for its preaching, seminaries, for the occasional saying of the new mass and for an entire collaboration with the local diocese, contrary to assurances made five years earlier. How on earth are we going to believe that the new rome is not going to make the same request after five or six years… the little SSPX, it is said, thinks that it can wed the official church without losing the virginity of its Faith.

Part II

The Adultery from the Truth

In the light of the above, we can now determine that to place ourselves under Benedict XVI is an adultery from the truth. Pope Benedict XVI is the best of his kind; the Mercedes Benz, Porsche and BMW of modernism. In the present concrete circuмstance, such a folly is a treasonable departure from the truth, the handing over of Tradition itself, and the preparation for the massacre of the souls of those who placed themselves under the protection of the Society for now forty years.

Most happily, Providence has always intervened to stop the irreparable from happening, but it would be most useful and safe to know, ahead of time, what sin is entailed by an agreement with the new rome.

FAITH: It cannot exist without confession. The SSPX was designed by its founder to be a perpetual army of the faith, fighting Carthage. It can and will take many blows, but if it steps down from its public stand against error it is to self demolish. Of Satan, Our Lord says “In veritate non stetit”“He failed to stand in the truth” (John VIII,44); the same could be said of us if we mellow. Our Lord argues with the Jєωs on the standpoint of the truth; a major theme of the whole Gospel of St John in which, very often, authority sides against the Truth. St John is no revolutionist; if authority follows the truth, then of course authority must be followed. But authority can fail with respect to the truth, and not infrequently.

When Faith is in danger, our duty to it becomes immense, and such a duty is the object of the sacrament of Confirmation which anoints the forehead with Chrism against blushing in the fight of the Faith. St Paul says that the heart believes the Faith for its own justification, but, more importantly that the confession of the Faith has to be made for its salvation, and the salvation of erring and confused bystanders. Most of us became Traditional Catholics from the confession of the faith of other Catholics; that is about to change as soon as the new rome puts us in a position of silence about its errors.

Short of destroying us outright, rome wants to contain us in a nice containment unit. But a containment unit is a prison, no matter how comfortable it is and well equipped. Our Faith does not simply belong to us, it belongs to the candlestick, it belongs to those in the world that shall take advantage of it, and add momentum to the pressure on rome to return to the Faith.

HOPE: For in this dark hour, instead of a fake return, isn’t a full return of rome to the Eternal Rome what we are looking for? The Book of the Apocalypse warns against the deception of Sardis, who has the name of being alive, but is in fact dead (the Persians stormed Sardis by deception) (Apoc. III,1), against the deceptive nature of the pale horse (neither entirely black, nor entirely white; whose rider’s name is death, because the admixture of truth and error kills more souls than the blatant heresies of the black horse and the violent persecutions of the red horse (Apoc. VI,8)), and against the devouring locusts that have the appearance of Charity (Apoc. IX,7).

Our Lady is most white, not in any grey, and she loves the tidiness of an army in battle array. She has not promised a Pope doing half of a job consecrating Russia (with Russia not converted as a result), still less a Pope who deforms her message, but a Pope who will do exactly what she requests. Such a mention of a great Pope is also in the prophecy of St Malachi and other prophecies.

How can it be otherwise, since the whiteness that a pope wears signify the purity of his doctrine and the sanctity of his actions as Leader of the sole society capable of saving the human race. Our hope is that the Church becomes again the ark of salvation, becomes capable to beget children for Heaven. That is the Mission and the Charity of the Church.

CHARITY: In the circuмstances of today, any agreement with the rome of today is a denial of the MISSION of the Society, which was designed precisely to rescue souls FROM the clutches of wolfy popes, cardinals, bishops and priests…worldwide, as the official church fails temporarily in its mission.Onecan’t dodge the clutches of the beast by placing oneself under its head but by staying altogether out of the range of the beast.

Secondly, because so many SSPX priests do not agree with the proposed 180 degree turn, it is necessarily going to end up into a horrible split. We are going to look like a sect, one side of the split fighting “the other side”; making lawyers rich in figuring out which side is going to keep this or that asset of the SSPX.

This in turn is going to discourage many of our faithful who do not have the elements to judge which side is which, and push away the newcomers of Tradition at the sight of this bitter incoming infighting.

That is why I cannot understand at all  that cruel phrase “We cannot rule out a split”. On the contrary, it takes just a restating of our doctrinal stand and an assessment of the new rome based on reality to bring a state of unity amongst ourselves. Truth only gathers, and if the SSPX weathers this tempest, it will become unsplittable for many years to come.

Isn’t a split what the cruel Rome of today looking for? Are not the Sedevacantists having the time of their life just watching us? ѕυιcιdє is a sin against Charity; we are not in the right to take the life of an entire Congregation, and that problem must be the sole concern of the next General Chapter.

PRUDENCE:Archbishop Lefebvre never trusted the new rome, even when he was in negotiation with it, because he had a clear vision of their constant operation of error. But even if the romans were not capable to deceive him, he clearly stated that the experience should never be repeated after his departure, until rome returns entirely to Tradition. How can we have the pretention of being smarter than the Archbishop, who escaped the wily romans only by a whiss. And if we don’t share the same firmness of analysis of Archbishop Lefebvre, how can we claim to elucidate the practical proposals that rome is constantly dangling before us?How can we accept to take even a small risk (and the risk is actually enormous) of losing so much at the hand of proven enemies?

The study of Barbier and Cretineau-Joly played an important role in the practical and doctrinal conduct of the Archbishop. In these two authors it is clearly stated that after its initial destructive period (the Terror, in the case of the French Revolution, and the sixties and seventies in the case of Vatican II), the Revolution elects to soften its approach to its enemies. This is called the Thermidorian phase of the Revolution, whose best illustration was the Treaty of La Jaunaye that concluded the wars of Vendee by dividing the Catholic army between those who were tired of the war and the irreducible followers of Charette who got liquidated once they were placed in a state of isolation from the others, who were less willing to fight. Throughout the XIXth century, French Catholicism kept on splitting between liberals and traditionalists, all the way down to Vatican II. All Revolutions have their phase of apparent mellowing in order to isolate those who still want to fight it, that is why it is so important for us not to confuse the false restoration, the false return of rome to Tradition with the real and total conversion of the Papacy, which will happen, but in God’s time. We should not dream to ourselves happy endings to this crisis; “Custos quid de nocte?”, says Scripture, “Watchman, what of the night?” Is the light of day coming today or is it some deceptive light?

The agonizing question for us is what is the proportion in our ranks, of those who are tired of this war against the new rome, who think it is just a useless, damaging and prideful pretension of heroism.

JUSTICE:“But, Father, Rome is proposing to repair the injustice done to us, Rome wants to be fair and gives us a place.” First of all we are not fighting in order to cleanse our honor, we must be instead like Suzanna who accept to undergo the unjust accusation, or like Rebecca who says “Let this malediction be upon me, my son”. Our situation is that of a son cast out of his house by his drunken father who resists the abuse of his mother. After a few days, the father accepts to reinstate the son back into the house on the condition that he stops rebuking him about his few drops of whisky and little bouts of temper against his mother. The conduct of the new rome is altogether irreprehensible, the father must stop his abuse before he can reinstate his son.

FORTITUDE: The aim of war is the destruction of the will to fight in the mind of your opponent.A general differs from a businessman or a bureaucrat in the sense that he must be prudent like them, but also retain this prudence under fire (cf Sun Tsu, “The Art of War”). Patton said to his soldiers “Fear nothing but your general; for if he is good and you are bad, he will whip your ass; whereas if he is bad, it is the enemy that shall whip your ass!” I truly hope that no Sister is reading this paper, otherwise I’m in trouble.

Bishop Fellay talks about threats coming from rome, but what are these terrible things? A new excommunication or suspension? We are well trained into being excommunicated and suspended because of the truth, and also one may note that for a punishment to be effective, the punisher should believe in what he inflicts. Those threats of rome are for rabbits: In the past, excommunication would mean imminent danger of eternal damnation; but the new rome believes only in universal salvation, so that the worse danger for us would be to be relegated to some layer of communion more peripheral than others, but still we would be better off than the Muslims, pagans and atheists, who are all members of the all-inclusive balthazaric church, whether they like it or not.

(The only one of whose salvation we can and must despair is not Judas and Lucifer, but Bishop Williamson who, no one can deny, dared to commit the most horrible crime in the entire history of humanity.)Therefore, no, Bishop Fellay will always be fine.

TEMPERANCE: It is not known enough that one of the acts of the virtue of temperance is to reject pride, flattery. In this, today’s roman authorities are spectacular experts. They give us permission to say mass anywhere in Rome, have our visiting priests stay in roman palaces, including the Holy Office, just behind St Peter’s basilica. They constantly tell us, just like Cardinal Gagnon in 1988, that our work is very valuable, and all the more valuable since the Church of today is rocked by so many problems, and that we must bundle effectively the conservative forces within the church to fight the progressivists (just like conservative fight liberals in liberal democracies, worldwide, failing so pitifully). Their food is gorgeous, the ballet of purple cassocks, birettas, fringes and laces is back, like in the good old days, and there is at all time a gilded door, wide open, inviting us to join in that ballet.If the lentils are good, I won’t deny it, but let them eat them themselves and I will keep the Faith of my inheritance.

Therefore, as far as I can enjoy that faculty in my priestly power, I curse this sevenfold sin against the seven virtues and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. A sin that starts by an indirect but very real assault on the virtue of Faith, and that is followed, in all logic, by the fall of the six other dominoes.

Part III

The Thwarted & Tempting Treason
(Situation as of May 25, but in need of periodic reassessment)

We had it coming, for at least 12 years, but the faithful and many priests were given no warning of this huge change of direction, which makes the U-turn to Rome enter into the genus of deception in action or treason.

For the moment the treason is thwarted, thanks to God, thanks to the resistance of many and the opposition of some modernists and French Bishops…but it is still trying to outflank. Therefore we are in need, like on a battleship, of a good fire control to readjust the landing of the shells on the new position of the enemy… and then, but only then will the enemy’s ship go to the bottom!

Now, before I allow you to read this letter any further, I request you, my dear reader, to sign this preamble: “I, the undersigned dear reader, hereby declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay hasn’t signed anything yet with the new rome, even if he suffers from a powerful desire to do so, and therefore that he is for the moment, until the last split second separating his ink from the paper, entirely excluded from the category of treason and remains our beloved and respected Superior General or the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth. Date: Anytime between now and Bishop Fellay signs. Signed: Dear Reader.

With this docuмent I am safe to proceed, because I know that some of you may accuse me of making my superior a traitor, further down this sermon.


TODAY’S SITUATION

That will very soon become out of date

The incoming General Chapter is like an incoming Vatican II: instead of being dogmatic as it should  have been, Vatican II was a pastoral council, and the incoming SSPX Chapter, instead of being a doctrinal Chapter, to address the emergency at hand, is now wrongly named administrative Chapter. Not that administrative details should be overlooked, but their place is at the end, just as actions follow ideas in the Epistles of St Paul.

Any General Chapter convenes to address issues facing a Congregation. Now, the SSPX faces its most serious issue since its inception: it is splitting doctrinally. (Read the letters of the 3 vs 1 bishops).Therefore, anyone with a sound mind would put current affairs in the backburner and place the one doctrinal problem alone on the center of the table. In these circuмstances, the very name of Administrative Chapter, (correct if may be in ordinary time), sounds cruel, like the willful covering of a serious danger. That chapter can only be named DOCTRINAL Chapter.

But even if this could be granted, the Devil will continue to outflank, and for the Devil, the next solution, is to cancel, or even better, postpone the General Chapter, according to the four steps of governance when a serious crisis is happening

Nothing is happening, then

Something might be happening but we cannot yet determine exactly what it is, then

Something is happening, but there is nothing we can do about it, then

It happened; therefore, let’s study the next serious crisis.


HOW WE DID GET HERE

But lets go back and study how our stance got eroded in the course of years.

-1 LOSS OF CLARITY

What is very worrying at the onset is this newfound culture of secrecy that was not practiced by the Archbishop when he came to Rome. Upon his return he would candidly expose everything he did to his seminarians, and the substance of his dealings would be public news within 48 hours.

Now, in his reply to the three Bishops, Bishop Fellay states that he cannot and will not open himself, even to them Bishops (no small-fries seminarians). Read carefully the paragraph starting “You cannot know how much”, and you can clearly see that the trust is gone.

It ain’t funny to be a SSPX Bishop these days, and I am not referring to the one who almost got expelled last September and who gets threatened every morning; I am referring to the Lamb and the Dove.

For the small priestly fries, in our internal bulletin, came the scary good news that “now the time has come to be recognized by the official church”, or that we are just waiting for a canonical structure from rome once rome has signed our doctrinal statement.Then, inevitably, passengers start to scream, because the plane has switched off the gasses and is losing altitude rapidly; then the pilot puts on the gasses again, saying “I was just joking, nothing is signed, YET.”

All this uncertainty is a new cross for us, and breeds a general state of unease.

-2 LOSS OF FORM OF DUE PROCESS

We tied ourselves, and the promise was frequently restated, that a practical agreement should not take place without an agreement of doctrine between us and rome. Now, the doctrinal discussions have just failed; Benedict XVI just came out of Assisi III, and we want a canonical solution with the new rome?

The signing of a practical agreement with the official church is a matter or primal importance for a religious congregation. That is why, again, it was promised to us that before taking such a momentous decision, the general council of the Society would convene first a General Chapter. Now, we hear of a signing in the month of May or June; how is that possible?

No due consideration is given to the fate of the other congregations (Dominicans, Capuchins, Benedictines, Carmelites, etc.) and all the independent priests that work alongside with us, should we sign. Their future is at stake and their position in the new church would be even riskier than ours and no one gives a dime?

Did we study how rome is going to countenance our convalidating, that is, our doubting the novus ordo Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders? How are they going to deal with our marriages? But the Pope can’t hold it any longer and we must elect all form of precipitation!

Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that the new code of canon law is worse than the new mass, or did he not? If we agree to a canonical agreement and put ourselves in the jumpsuit of a canonical structure, under what canon law do we entrust ourselves?

-3 FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORD AGREEMENT

What is the deep meaning of a practical agreement with rome anyways? It is when the Pope will only say the True Mass, because, in order to say mass in the first place, the priest makes use of his practical intellect, where, says St Thomas, the Sacramental Character of Holy Order is impressed indelibly. Now, that is a practical agreement that I can sign; no ambiguity, and an effective agreement or return of Rome to Tradition.

A doctrinal agreement would be the same; that is, not a condemnation of some interpretation of Vatican II, but the condemnation of the entire text of the Council, with all its time bombs, with all its half-truths, with all its blatant errors (religious liberty, for instance), with all its traditional sounding pages alternating with modernist ones, with all its omissions (of the condemnation of Communism, of the definition of Our Lady Mediatrix and Coredemptrix), with all its new notion of the Church, its ecuмenism and manifold errors, and in the end with all its consequences. One cannot separate, many of our studies and congresses clearly showed it, the traditional part of the Council from the erroneous one. One cannot separate the very text of the Council from its consequences. One cannot separate a good and bad interpretation of the Council. For so long, we thought we were all agreed about this, and now we are supposed to change entirely that most vital stance of the Archbishop!

A doctrinal agreement needs to be a common and complete rejection of the entire text itself, in one piece, of Vatican II; and that truth and error cannot be disentangled from a Council that draws its dangerousness from its ambiguity. Remember Pascendi!

-4 A DRAMATIC INCREASE OF GULLIBILITY

The Rosary Crusades are good instruments to measure our gullibleness and the gullibility of our faithful; they give an automatic blessing to what we already plan to do in advance and a perfect warning to the official church that we are coming to buy something from them. But there are limits: Did we seriously believe in 2007, when we came to Rome, bouquet in hand, that rome was going to give to the entire Church something extremely good (but with necessary imperfections as usual), straight from the hands of Our Lady, instead of a mere repeat of the conditions of the 1984 Motu Proprio, namely : - accept Vatican II

 - don’t attack the new mass?

Answer: Absolutely yes; and not only that, but with this new distinction between ordinary and extraordinary, the True Mass is put technically in a lower level than the mass of Luther.

Why all this gullibility? Because, this time, it is not like the other time; concrete circuмstances have changed and this repackaging of the 1984 Motu Proprio was absolutely sensational. With such a glittery presentation, who cares if it is diamond or plastic?

Exit bachelorette #1; enter the dainty 2009 Rosary Crusade #2:

This time it is the solemn high holy reparation of the injustice done to us, the removal of the excommunication, but! Wait a second, if rome merely lifts the excommunication, it means it was valid in 1988 and the Archbishop died in his sins. How can Our Lady go for that?

The 2007 and 2009 rosary crusades are a mockery of Our Lady…but surprisingly, the third one doesn’t sound bad. But I may be wrong, becoming a flaker myself. And are we going to get goofed again this time? Heaven knows…

Gullibility is such that it looks for occasions to believe. In December 2010 we joined this wonderful Pope in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament for the defense of life, for the defense of the natural order created by God. Bad timing! Benedict XVI made himself famous at the same time by releasing the opinion that the use of condom for a male prostitute involved in sodomy “could be the beginning of a moralizing process”. The liberal press immediately got the message; the door is open for the Church authorizing the use of condoms; Fr Ortiz even told me that in the Carribean, novus ordo priests were distributing condoms. After such a lesson, we are still looking for gullibling opportunities!

-5 BELIEF IN GRADUAL EVOLUTION

The big argument is that semi Arians didn’t convert overnight and sinners take time to overcome their bad habit, and if you treat Benedict harshly he is not going to listen, he is not going to change etc. First, the semi Arians were in no position of strength, they were not the local bishops of the diocese of St Basil and St Gregory; it is basic diplomacy: you rarely obtain anything if you concede something in a position of weakness. And secondly, did St Basil start to believe in the hermeneutic of continuity of the semis as we are doing now? Didn’t he correct actively the erroneous concepts of the semis (something Fr Iscara is not proposing us to imitate in St Basil), while postponing the use of difficult expression for a brief time?

The problem is that if you eat supper with the Devil (and our devil is in a position of strength), you need a very long spoon. Bishop Williamson should be the one to be put in charge of the relations with the new rome… and in charge of communication with the media! (cries of terrified horror in the congregation)

The solution of this crisis is like an exorcism performed on the authorities demolishing today’s Church.So many people have joined tradition over the course of years, by us staying above the water, and now we think we are going to catch fishes by dialogue and brave, traditional sword thrusts in the water!?

-6 SIGNS OF DOCTRINAL FLAKING

I always thought that the SSPX understood the question of religious liberty; it doesn’t seem to be the case if one read the interview of Fr Schmidberger in the angelus and the interview of Bishop Fellay on Catholic News Network (?).

The many lectures publications, symposiums and interviews against Vatican II don’t seem to sink in our minds any more. They don’t guarantee us from becoming lilly-livered against new errors, from becoming implacable placators in our turn, fighting against whistle-blowers in our midst, and from becoming popularity seekers before the media.

I remember asking Bishop Fellay in Cebu, before Assisi III, if he could make some big statement and gesture, like the Archbishop did for Assisi I. All I got was an angry NO, on account of our work of dealing with rome now.

One can understand why Menzingen wants to postpone the General Chapter… there are so many doctrinal questions that need to be assessed and redressed.

I remember praying in 1994, for the election of Bishop Fellay. Next time I will not give any names to God but pray for a General who shall lead us into the battle, vigorously and wisely.

But compromisers can firm up sometimes, so I won’t give up just as yet on Bishop Fellay. Pius IX started a liberal and quickly became a rock of truth after his election; Archbishop Lefebvre believed in religious liberty when he was young. We are now completely at the mercy of God, who can punish us if we don’t watch what we pray for.

-7 GRADUAL & AUTHORITARIAN COERCION OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Just as we are nice to Benedict XVI, good priests and bishops resisting reconciliation are facing growing threats, a perfect repeat of Vatican II: “If you don’t agree with the official stance of the Society, leave the society”. Well, the duty of a priest of the Society is not necessarily to uphold the position of the society, especially if it has just changed all of a sudden one good morning of May 2012. The duty of a priest of the Society is to protect the Catholic Faith, as long as the official church is overrun by modernism.

Another threat: “Your dialectic between Faith and authority is contrary to the Priesthood” But this exactly what Caiphas told Peter, this is the contrary to that vital quote of Galatians I, 8&9; “If even I or an angel of God…” This is exactly the manner of speech of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop.

Another threat: “You don’t have the grace of state to see the greater picture, you are stepping out of line and spreading confusion” The best way to start confusion in the SSPX is to tamper with its DNA; then of course a cancer is beginning to spread.


PLOT COUNTERED

We can still believe, in may 2012, that Our Lady still loves the Society, for as a clear secret plan (deliberate or not, it doesn’t matter) and many things were set in place to bring about an official reunion of the official SSPX and the official church; in just a few days, the whole ship got torpedoed.

For it is Britain, and Britain gloriously alone that put an inglorious end to treason, by leaking letters on the internet. Indeed, in this hour, even the frogs will be forever in the debt of these British gentlemen at their finest. In one swift Nelsonian move, all the fowl dispositions of our enemies got exposed and their lies confounded by their own mouths.

The most important thing that these letters do is to break the law of silence. Yes, we knew that something was brewing, and we were slowly talked into it, be we did not expect that it was in such an advanced stage. For our faithful, who for the most were completely unsuspecting, the brutal reality of a split in the Society appeared, thereby compelling them to reach for their rosaries and request the crisis to be averted.

The twin letters of Bishops give such perfect account of the opposite doctrinal positions in the SSPX, that hardly any one of us could give a better summary. Even if the Menzingen letter is written after, the letter of the three remains the answer to it; in such a wise as one could put the facing arguments in two opposite columns.

The Menzingen letter of one bishop sounds as it is written by three and the letter of the three bishops reads as it is written by one.The first part of the Menzingen letter read just like Dom Gerard in 1988, the second part, about depth and breadth seems to be written by somebody else who buys the notion that the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI is not all that bad, and the last third reads like our internal bulletin and directives that urge us to march triumphantly, we little oysters, into the canonical plate of the Walrus and Carpenter. Its tone is clearly the same tone as Bishop Fellay.

But the resistance of the three proved too strong to overcome, for the moment. Our Lady is indeed a most beautiful queen, and adding to her charm, three little animals came in succession: a cat, a lamb and a dove. Allow me to put it williamsonically for you:

Fighting
Bishop   Williamson / Tissier de Mallerais / de Gallareta

Symbol   
(big) Cat / Lamb / Dove

Main Weapon   
Big mouth / Big speculative intellect / Big practical intellect

Main Target   
Bishop Fellay / Benedict XVI / Link betwixt the 2

Angle of attack   
Hard and Hot / Cold / Soft

Weakness   
+Fellay too angry / +Fellay too indifferent / +Fellay not angry enough

Effect on Bishop Fellay   
Would like to expel but can’t / Would like to refute but can’t / Would like to  disagree but can’t

Effect on the new rome   
Can’t even smell the SSPX / Can’t debate successfully with the SSPX / Can’t ever bring about a practical deal with the SSPX

RESULT   

THE NEW ROME AND THE SSPX REMAIN SEPARATE UNTIL THE PAPACY CONVERTS

VICTORY   
   
In the end one wonders why Bishop Fellay chose to press on regardless of the opposition of the three bishops, and the degree of impreparation of the new rome itself. In the SSPX, the three bishops carry and enormous weight, despite the fact that they are not in control of the administrative machinery of the SSPX. Many priests remain at first silent on the whole question, some are scared for their future, some resist openly but maybe clumsily(yours truly), and one should not blame them for not having the same grace of Confession as a bishop, but as the faithful sense more clearly the danger with their sensus fidei, the shifting lines of battle are gradually pushing back the idea of a false peace with the new rome. What shall happen in this hot summer of 2012 will determine the nature of our war for many years to come.


My dear faithful,

we are in the thick of the storm, much shaken and fearful, but with Our Lady, comfortably resting in our hearts, until the head of the SSPX adjust itself to reality and the visible head of the Church returns to Tradition:

War is on, and when war is upon us, war on.

Bishop Fellay (2003) vs Bishop Fellay (2012): Condemnation of the Campos Sellout is a Condemnation of the SSPX Practical Accord!



Dear Friends and Benefactors,

OUR RELATIONS WITH ROME

Once again our Letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own "regularization" in the Society of St. Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.

Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.

Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.

However, it is clear that the principle governing today's Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle, on the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome's own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.

CHANGES IN CAMPOS

Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome's offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.

For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one's adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that "Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass", or, "Campos has completely given up Tradition". However, that being said, here is what we observe:

The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI's encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II's traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, "Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church's Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today".

The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favorable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet, And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: "We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting". Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome's gesture in favor of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation...They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.

Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman... "We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer", said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.

Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: "So we reject all use of the traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith (…)". We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: "Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of St. Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It's not the same thing". That was Rome's argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of St. Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The cardinal's curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today's Rome. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition", said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chretienne. Yet a well-known cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing....

So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests' tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday's warnings and today's deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.

LEAVING THE SSPX BEHIND

Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.

A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.

To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants —for the moment.

One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome's offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome's offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect's plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?

To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today's Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have re-stated with actions speaking louder than words that "there must be no innovations outside of Tradition", then "we" shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that "It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny".

LIFE INSIDE THE SSPX

Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labors. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.

In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good… These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops' severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the sisters: "When the Society of St. Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania". May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop's expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.

Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.

A young priest said to us, "If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: 'Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!' But I don't know the old Mass, I don't know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?" Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. "I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass".

How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!

But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.

At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.

+Bishop Fellay
January 6, 2003

Letter of Fr Joseph Pfeiffer to Fr Couture:


Dear Fr. Couture,
In Answer to the Second "canonical monition" and after taking counsel from a Canon Lawyer, and other priests, it is necessary to note the following:

1. It is soley within the competence of the Superior General to give Monitions of expulsion to the members of his order. Lower authorities do not have the competence. (e.g District Superiors can punish only within their districts in regard to their district) Hence the Superior General is the correct authority to both admonish and expel his subjects according to Justice and the law.
Therefore, the two "canonical monitions" sent from the District of Asia go beyond the competence of the District. Expulsion of members, especially perpetual members of the SSPX belongs to Superior General alone. To date, I received no communication either of praise or correction from the Superior General. Therefore I remain, according to the law, a member in good standing in the SSPX.

2. No specific crime is indicated in the monition, hence no delict exists since "odiosa sunt adstrigenda." no one can be punished for "scandal and spiritual damage" as you claim in your second monition, but only for specific acts which can thus be exposed by the prosecution and answered by the defendant before an impartial tribunal--which tribunal does not exist.

The 2 "canonical Monitions" are invalid on the grounds of exceeding the competence of the one issuing it and on the grounds of lack of clear accusation of crime. On either ground the case of expulsion should not only be thrown out of court, but should not be allowed to be tried.

3. I have received a positive command from you to be completely silent on anything that either is or may be perceived to be a criticism of the Superior General and his current direction. This last week, Bishop Fellay seems to have reversed his current and now says that he was deceived and erred in a dangerous way in the past few months. Does this mean that those in favor of the current that flows to Rome should now be silenced? Does this mean that now I can criticize compromising with Rome? Now I can say no deal with Rome until Rome converts? (Yesterday this must have been wrong since yesterday the SG had a different idea. But today it is true since today the SG has changed his mind.) Does Truth evolve? Your answer must be "Not so but distinguo in the Superior YES in the subject NO" This is mitigated modernism, Truth evolves for the modernist period, but for you and the neo-SSPX truth cannot evolve in mere mortals or mere popes, but only in "the Superior General." Your place in the fight for Tradition is thus undermined and completely unstable since it rests on the cult of a man instead of the Divine Cult of God in His Church and in His unchanging Faith.

4. Fr. Chazal and myself made no predictions about the deal with Rome. Fr. Schmidtburger and Fr. lombardi announced it for the end of May. Then The Vatican for June 13, We only repeated what they said, so that the faithful would know. We are not the prophets of doom. We only preach what we SSPXers, including yourself, have consistently preached for the last 40 years. (i.e VII =Bad, eternal Rome=Good: Compromise=evil: Fidelity to unchanging Truth=Good: Deal with Rome before Rome converts=Bad: Deal with Rome w/o conversion=Wicked betrayal etc. cf. ABL ubique)

We let our yes be yes and our no be no. We operate in the open and resist Modernism and its protaganists "to the face." Our fight is not with men nor even Menzingen, but with the Devil and his host.

If you were secure in your position of turning to Modernist Rome to make the SSPX another Novus Ordo appendage as the FSSP et alii, you would be able to defend this position in the light of day with clear arguments, and proofs of the supposed change of Rome, and of the clear difference of Rome today with the Rome of Vatican II errors. If you stood on Truth, you would not need to resort to threats and defamation to discredit those who disagree with the neo-SSPX.

Further our problem, Fr. Chazal and myself, is not only with a deadly wicked deal with non converted Conciliar Rome, but more importantly, our problem with the neo-SSPX is its modernist tendancies, promoted by the official organs of the SSPX such as Dici.org and SSPX.org which have mixed Novus Ordo and Traditional things together, (e.g. present banner of Dici.org showing Novus ordo ordinands then SSPX ordinands as if they are the same! article on bishops criticizing lack of Religious Liberty in Afganistan, explaining away the popes promotion of condoms for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and so on) without any clarifications, condemnations of the various selected acts of Modernist Rome.

Fr. Chazal and I are not disturbed by the threats of excommunication from our Order or from any unjust treatments connected thereto. We are not upset with those who malign and condemn us, many do so with good will, unaware of the danger to Faith, now present within the SSPX ranks and pews throughout the world. We also have happily worked under your direction over the past 6 years for myself, and 10 years for Fr. Chazal. You have been in so many ways good to us. Our problem is only with the danger to souls presented by the present unstable modernist direction of the SSPX

We continue "as we are," priests of the SSPX at war with Modernism. We continue "as we are" loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, following his clear non-compromising Catholic plan of action for our times. We continue "as we are" in the work of spreading the Gospel with the Caritas Christi which urget nos.

in Christ,

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
London Airport Sept. 13, 2012

Rivarol
Quoted from Rorate Coeli
June 1, 2012 Interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
Last Public Words of Opposition
He Became an Accordista 1 Month Later After the 2012 SSPX General Chapter:



R: What do you say to those who believe that Rome has changed with Benedict XVI?

Bp. T: It is certain that Benedict XVI has made some gestures in favor of Tradition. Especially by declaring that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and, in second place, by suppressing the so-called excommunication that had been declared regarding us following our episcopal consecration by Abp. Lefebvre. These two positive gestures drew bitter complaints from the episcopates towards Benedict XVI. But Pope Benedict XVI, while he is Pope, remains Modernist. His programmatic address of December 22, 2005 [on the hermeneutic of continuity and reform] is a profession of the evolution of the truths of faith according to the dominant ideas of each time. Despite his favorable gestures, his real intent by integrating us in the conciliar orb cannot be other than to lead us to Vatican II. He had said it himself to H.E. Bp. Fellay in August 2005, and a confidential note by himself, published fraudulently, has confirmed it recently. (Rorate note: the reference here is to a note attributed to Pope Benedict XVI and referring to the SSPX that was among those publicized in the Vatileaks affair.)